I think we would all like to see this game succeed as it is the only 40k game like it around, but these folks are in the business to make money, let them worry about attracting people to play the game. Honestly OP while I empathize with your concerns about the success of the game I would stop stressing about things outside your control. We should just be worried about playing our share and maybe providing feedback on what they have given us so far.

As for what the game is worth, the argument is irrelevant because the current price is what the developer thinks it is worth and is what they are asking us to pay. Either pay it or don't, they will adjust prices based on sales, and if we're lucky they may take into account our feelings on it being to expensive. I go back to the huge threads on the forums about how over priced rogue trader items were. They didn't really address it so much as circumvent it by closing down the store...

Just my 2 cents:

I hadn't seen anything about the game prior to running through my Steam Early Access game rater thing. I would have definitely jumped in on the founder train if I had known about it, but if people have to accidentally stumble across the game the player counts are never gonna be great.

wtf are you babbeling about?
" the higher the cost of the game the more..."
no.
people play/buy games cos their friends all have it, cos there's a hype, etc.
if a game is too expensive, its too expensive.
following your logic i could make a game with 400hours of content and sell it for 1000$?
what about No man;'s sky? damn that is going to cost a fortune then...

it does not make a good argument.

My investment definitely worth it.
$120 = 700+ game hrs (and whatever else comes).

Past 2 weeks, 27 hrs but about half spent on UAT. So objectively I don't think it's worth it at present unless $40 is something you're comfortable gambling with.

That said I don't believe that the cost or the queue are the root causes for player retention in EA. It's quite obvious that people don't enjoy the imbalance and broken mechanical elements (or at least ridiculously confusing elements). You could bring an additional 5k people here overnight and retain very few because of those factors.

The game at present is not stable enough, balanced enough, enjoyable enough to keep players here long term even if they're getting into matches. The 3 reasons I've played in the last month have been to play with my crew, to see the new stuff (UAT only) and because I like the culture of playtest and feedback. The first I can do in any live game, the second I'm seeing a small-scale exclusive test and the third ... Well, I'd do that if the game was a total lemon, as long as it had potential, but most won't.

The biggest pro Early Access has going for it is the patching, i.e once the player has their fill (could be 2 days, could be 2 weeks) they return to experience the new content as frequently as it's supplied and stay when it stabilizes, IF it's worthy. I've had some experiences with good EA products that sucked and were hollow from patch to patch then suddenly became good as it neared release. The marketing onus on the Devs is to make each patch as interesting, promising and as inoffensive as possible, lest you turn off people you need to sample every future patch.

Bottom line to me is that player volume does not improve Early Access because Early Access to a B2P Alpha is not about showing off the (typically broken to fuck) gameplay and roping in a larger player base that will inevitably risk burning out and forming stubborn long-lasting opinions prematurely. All of that stuff can wait until Beta. It is less engaging for people willing to stomach WIP when they have less player-content to interact with, but that's not the guiding purpose.

TL;DR (read it you lazy bastards )

EA product is good enough to: Investigate, spend a few hours in getting a preview and is a brilliant return on investment as long as the game reaches launch.
EA is not good enough to: play 4-12h/5-7d a week, trying to drown the servers with people who aren't going to enjoy the game as it is is not guaranteeing a better experience and is potentially detrimental.

TL;DR 2 (come on wtf ? )

This is still 100% true 23 months later, specifically the multiplayer bits (1:58 on especially relevent)


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmLz00L6CmY

Was going to write something along these lines but this thread is clownshoes so I couldn't be bothered.

Thanks for doing it for me!

This is unnecesary.

http://forum.eternalcrusade.com/threads/the-terrible-state-of-the-crusade.55056/page-27#post-1152320

After so many years of this practice being rather common, people should know already what early access means and what are the "consequences" of buying EA game.

Plus, you're not buying early access, you're buying full game and are granted alpha access before its released, no reason for price to be lower, unless its one of these "eternal in beta" games, which EC is not.

Guys you just don't get it, this discussion is not only about EA. Most of all it's about EC's low popularity so far while other WH40k games are able to attract a lot of ppl. Maybe in such a situation it's worth to think about some marketing strategies, lowering the price was just one of them.

Same reason I am here as well. One day I was rummaging through steam, deep within it's libraries, and I saw the words Eternal crusade. *click* "Huh, this is a Warhammer shooter game... *skim* *skim* Orkz and Eldar!?" That is when I bought the game.

When this game gets most of the major kinks out of the way (Orkz, Eldar, PVE, Crashes, Frames, wargear, etc) then they should start advertising this game like crazy. Who knows how many people are out there like
Cpattom and myself ?



And yes, I bolded those for a reason